"Marketed to at-risk males" Proof that they (or their lawyers) are smoking crack.
I would offer them 1,000,000 shares of Remington stock seconds before filing bankruptcy.
Yes. I am surprised Remington is rolling over this easily. The PLCAA protects gun makers and retailers from liability occurring from the misuse of their products. The CT Supreme Court ruled that this lawsuit could go forward, which does appear to directly violate federal law.Okay that's weird I thought gun makers had amnesty if their product is used incorrectly? Am I missing something?
Well they can afford a house in Bend now. Oh bubblegum! That means they’re coming this way!!!!"The lawsuit said that Remington shouldn't have been selling a weapon of that caliber to the public, and the company marketed the gun to young, at-risk males." Young, anus-brained males more likely.
"The families who filed the lawsuit said their goal was to prevent more mass shootings in the future" How is their free money gonna have any role in preventaion??
3.7 mil each, I'll bet they were hoping for more than that.
I just read today that the payout is coming from two companies that insured Remington. The settlements were offered by insurance companies Ironshore and James River. It's only a guess, but there is a good chance that these two companies were helping pay the bills to fight the lawsuit. Once the court ruled against Remington, they came forward with the settlements. Settlement is often the cheaper way out. They could keep up the legal battle, spend who knows how much on lawyers for who knows how long, then still lose in the courtroom. This being a highly emotional issue, a jury could award some sky-high judgement that is way more than $33 million. Way more. It's a business decision.I am surprised Remington is rolling over this easily.
It is an odd thing, but seems to be in vogue with those of unsound mind. My mentally ill crackhead brother keeps insisting I repent to him for things I've never done to him all the while sending me passive aggressive text messages threatening legal action against me for being the executor of our dad's estate.This is akin to apologizing to the woke mob for doing American stuff you've done your entire life. Total morons.
You should (not while your eating!) look into that a bit more. Not saying I disagree with your basic point, but that really isn't the best example that you think it is
It really is, if you order a hot coffee, I expect it to burn me if I drink it before it cools down.You should (not while your eating!) look into that a bit more. Not saying I disagree with your basic point, but that really isn't the best example that you think it is
This case is often cited as an egregious lawsuit, but in actuality it's more complex than that. That 79 year old woman spent eight days in hospital with 3rd degree burns covering 16% of her body, requiring debridement and skin grafts, causing permanent scarring, and disabling her for two years. McDonalds admitted that their coffee was "not fit for consumption" at the temperatures it was served at, and would cause 3rd degree burns in two to seven seconds if spilled, and that they did not provide any sort of warning about that temperature.